Eugene writes:
> hal@finney.org wrote:
> > We see from this how far cryonics remains from the mainstream.
>
> Blame cryonicists for that, at least partly.
>
> Sure, one needs an inkling in half a dozen of more or less
> obscure sciences and branches of technology to understand
> the problem set thoroughly, and most people show criticality
> in dynamics of relations to a given subject (sheeple ignore
> or vilify new subjects until those standing high in the social
> hierarchy adopt them, regardless of subject's actual utility),
> but cryonics seems to draw rather strange people. Anecdotally,
> and not so anecdotally.
I'm not so sure the strangeness of cryonicists is the problem, simply
because I'll bet most people have never met one, and their exposure to
them on TV has been limited. The numbers of cryonics supporters are so
small that their personalities probably haven't had much impact.
I think it's an emotional reaction people have to the very idea of
cryonics. Most people find it absurd, horrifying, and/or the ultimate
in selfishness and narcissism. A few people don't have these reactions
and ultimately come to support it.
So on this view, the strangeness of cryonicists is the effect rather
than the cause of most people's abhorrence. The few people who don't
find the idea horrifying are peculiar in this way, and this strangeness
manifests in other ways as well.
You see the same thing in other small, self-selected communities.
Libertarians tend to be rather odd, and let's face it, extropians are
not exactly average. I'm sure the same thing happens among extreme
environmentalists, feminists, religious sect members, and so on.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:38 MDT